Share link

Embed

Comments

Hi. I have a new theory about Bing Bang and what gonna happen to the universe. my theory contains time and its dimensions, matter and antimatter, quantum relations between them, higgs boson, representation of the on going process of cosmos in the form of mathematics and geometry. It is a very fundamental theory that I`m sure it would revolt and improve the physics basics. My question is that I want you to help and show me that how can I prove my integrated theory and how can I be sure that no body uses my idea in the time that I discuss about it? Human beings need to be aware of the reality and what is really going on.

There is my theory of time. Time must be a ration of magnitudes with same units all together .
Time should be directly proportional to acceleration due to gravity ( I am using acceleration due to gravity because when you travel at speed of light the Mass on which acceleration acts to create force will become energy. So basically it will be xJm/s^2 .) Time should be inversely proportional to space .( more the space , less the acc due to gravity) So taking k to be a constant of proportionality we get T = S * g / c^2 ( since to alter time we must reach the speed of light) . S is space and g is gravity. take the magnitude to be x and therefore. m * m / s^2 / m^2 * s^2. The units cancel out. And time is one. So 1 - 1 = 0. I give you the fundamental digits of the theory of binary universe 0 and 1 same like lazer and particle

I can finally explain that the universes was crated by something it did not just pop out of no were but not telling one yet because hard on it and steel it and I don't how to get out there. this is. Excellent work.

I did not remove you from the wikipedia article, that must have been someone else probably found no proof for your claims. I am not insulting you, why can't you see that ? I'm saying what you present is wrong for so and so but you keep making it personal.

This boy (as well as Nasir) needs some kind of help. He's not going to get it if he's granted all these false records. He even modified a wikipedia article on child prodigies to include himself as one.

Jenn, what about the other claims ? The Dirac medal ? Einstein award ? P vs NP problem ? All these are fabrications. Again and again, there is failure to provide any proof of this. And again abstract thought does not generate false equations; his basic equation which explains nothing says something like 10 apples are equal to 5 oranges. It does not make any sense.

The other claims don't affect the record. It is the Internet, so I'd hope that readers would take anything they saw out there with a grain or two of salt. I'm fine with editing anything that has to do with the record, it's rules, etc. so if any claims affect a record please let me know!

I don't quite understand; nominees for the Dirac medal are known and he is not one of them. Neither was he nominated for the Einstein award. Again, the point I'm trying to get across is something has to be legitimate about the record. I cannot patent something that does not make any sense and is even wrong at any age and say that's a record. For example, this person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Tao is one of the youngest full professors of maths in UCLA. Everything about him can be verified, even his work. You can find him listed on UCLA's website and find his papers published in all sorts of journals. Andrew claims he's a professor and has provided nothing as evidence. This current record does not hold also, you cannot patent wrong stuff and claim a record of youngest to patent anything it just does not work.

"The procedure for granting patents, requirements placed on the patentee, and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. The law says that proof of documentation, or any records documented in a specific date grants the inventee legal rights as the true invention owner."

While this is true, you've stated where the theory is meant to be patented, which makes it very easy to verify. The US and Europe each have a single governing body for registering patents, which means that while the procedures may vary, we're only looking at two organizations. When the patent appears in either database and can be verified, we can review.

Thank you for the proof of filing; however, your seven-digit patent number is missing from the documentation. An application is not an indication that the patent has been approved; if you have additional evidence we can certainly review it.

Yes, but it takes patents 6 month to 2 years to show up on the database, public databases aren't as valid as a database check made by a lawyer, also I paid an attorney to file the patent and everything, so otherwise, this record is valid and still stands by my word.

Non Provisional Patent #61552350
Patent Pending in Europe
Patent Registered in US By both Uspto and Creative Registry
IPR Use Only
Patented through company registered by the BB Accreditation and the US government

None of those are actual patents, Andy. Patents in the US are registered only through the US Patent and Trademark Office, not private companies. Patents in Europe are registered through the European Patent Office, not private companies. Both provide searchable databases of their registries, including pending patents. You have provided registration information, not a patent.

you have to be 13 years or older to sign up for the website, and if the parents register for you then it will show their name on the certificate not the 10 year old's so tell me BEEKY, how well you get a 10 year old to do that, and what would really be the point and why do you keep posting comments over and over again?

Well Andrew, in a sense you do need to prove what you claim, because you're claiming a world record. This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. Your equation is WRONG. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, I'm trying to point out to you that you're wrong. The only response you have to any inquiry is that you're right. Nothing else whatsoever. Why should this community then grant you a world record if you don't need to prove anything to them ? Why are you trying to associate a world record to your name if you don't need to prove anything to anyone ?

This particular record only remains standing as it makes no reference to the credentials and does not require the theory to be correct. In that sense, it is a record.

Whether the theory is correct is another matter entirely - the record doesn't require the theory to be correct, only that it be patented. Any member of the scientific community who views the record, the rules and the submitted theory is welcome to draw their own conclusions from there, of course.

Right, I will then get my friend's kid, a 10 year old to go to that same website : RW whatever and write some completely wrong equations and get this record beaten. This RW website does not grant patents by the way just to let you know. A patent requires lawyers and registration somewhere else.

Becky that is an excellent point; at the time it seemed like semantics but you are 100% correct -- registration and patenting are two separate processes. As patents can only be granted by a government, this evidence does not show the theory is patented. Andy, can you please provide the U.S. patent details so they can be confirmed; if you don't have them, the record will be modified to reflect the lack of a patent.

Something else Jenn, when you say "theory" it has to be a theory. What I see here, so sorry to use this phrase but I can't find anything better, it's just gibberish. What is presented here does not qualify as a theory.

Not exactly. A scientific theory is a set of laws (hypotheses and equations) that have long withstood the test of experiments. This applies to Quantum theory, relativity theory, evolutionary theory, electromagnetic theory etc. in other words, abstract thought that leads to results consistent with experiments.

I don't need to prove anything to you people. you are all title to your opinion if you agree say I agree, if you disagree say I disagree, but don't go ahead and call someone a fraud, rebuttal, and try to hurt their feeling, that would be going to far

Your name is not listed on Harris Manchester College's website as a professor, and you provide no proof whatsoever of the theory. Can you put up a copy of your PhD thesis ? I even tell you the units are wrong in your basic equation and the only rebuttal you offer is "My theory is correct". Nasir, this website is not working and I can't find any theories there. There's no evidence that Hawking congratulated anybody on a theory so groundbreaking like you describe which should have made headline everywhere.

In 2008.
Also if you were valuable to the scientific community you would stop spending all your time discrediting me and use your time in research, wheat is your real name Leeky, are you even an actual physicist, where did YOU, yourself get your degree from?

Hi Nasir, whom I suspect is Andrew also. Can you tell us what institution Andrew works at as a Professor ? Can you shows us some of his papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals ? And by the way, I am a physicist and work with physics and I published papers so I know it inside and out. This formula does not make any sense and is also wrong in terms of units. Not to mention, patenting a theory is of no use.

I personally work with Dr.kamal as a physics colleague and he is right also some of the comments here ar hurtful and he does have a patent I have not seen any of you do any work in physics so quiet all of you

Well silly young Andrew, of course anything in the states here is copyrighted as soon as it's written, ...that's the law. So, that being the case you are certainly far from the youngest person to have a copyright.

...I have a patent. You don't. Anyone can easily check online using the search feature at the patent office website. ...I did, and you aren't there.

I don't know that you spent anything. I don't care either. Whatever you think you have, it's not a patent, and you don't have a trademark either, although you could have a trademark if you wanted one, and had the money to pay for it.

I did look at your link and found nothing there of any significance. What you write seems to be nonsense, and unrelated to any science.

Whatever that 'record info' thing is, it's not a legal document of any kind, just more nonsense.

You are just a little boy playing little boy games, pretending to be something you are not.

...I'm a logician, which means I know logic, and can say with certainty that I have proved that your claim is false.

Patents have a number assigned to them, and if you said what your patent number was then everyone could look (in case you spelled your name wrong) and also see that you are telling a big fib.

Your parents must be very ashamed of you. I expect when you grow up you will wish you had never done this. Your future employers will Google you and find that you are not a honest nor a truthful person. ...So will your children and grandchildren and all your friends and relatives.

Also it is copyrighted through protect a rite, patented through registered works and trademarked through the USPTO, so why do you think I would pay all the money unless I have some evidence to prove, did you even go to http://andsocialrew.wall.fm/news to see my articles and what I have to say, this section that you see here is just a paragraph in the big research paper. At least look at everything I have before you start to give me critisism

Wow. Andrew, you are certainly out there. Funny guy!
...I'm pretty sure you don't have the slightest clue about any of this. Oh, and yes you may be certain that I have read Einstein's book on general relativity (more than forty years ago.) The famous equation you quoted is not the theory but just one equation on one page of the book. If you want to, you can Google it and find the entire text available online.

Folks, if you are reading this, take it from me that it's probably a joke Andrew if playing, and if not then he's just delusional.

In a nut shell Einstein realized that time and distance are measured the same (a foot is roughly the same as a nanosecond) and he applied it to geometry (an event has 4 numbers: length width height and time) which in turn was wrapped slightly by mass locally.

While only a few understood it when he wrote it, it's one of the two theories which cover all know phenomena. Modern string theory is sort of the merger of the two.

Einstein's work is spot-on accurate. Seriously accurate to the extent that in nearly a century we have not found any error in it, not even the smallest of error using the most precise of instruments and experiments.

It does not stand alone but is a step in our understanding, built upon the works of others such as Newton. Energy and mass were once though of as fixed, unchangeable, neither created nor destroyed, thus 'conserved' in the total quantity through all time. Einstein's work showed that energy and mass together were conserved, and that energy and mass could be converted from one to another. The famous equation: 'E equals m (times) c squared' allows a person to convert kilograms of mass into Jules of energy, which has indeed been confirmed and is what we refer to as atomic or nuclear energy.

This makes no sense at all. F=ma and E=mc^2 are two different equations. Energy and force were once synonymous, but not anymore. I suggest you don't confuse them. Both equations have been proven countless times. I don't see any mathematical proof. Real scientists publish peer reviewed papers to publicize theories, not patents. Einstein never said E=ma^2.

I certainly don't have the command of physics knowledge I once did, but I do know that Einstein's theory has been challenged before. A Google search can tell us that. The website used to register this theory does not cross-reference the work being submitted and gives no recommendation as to the validity of the contents being uploaded there -- the record merely states that the theory must be patented, not correct, so it is a record, whether the theory is acceptable or not.

MATT first of all velocity equals distance divided by time, where the constent is time. Second of all Einstien is wrong because E = mc^2 equation applies only to isolated systems , not to everything in physics. He forgot a very important vairable in which I have included in my work. Einstien ony measured an intial frame of force rather then testing many vairables. My idea, however, works with everything and laws in physics.

I'm not challenging the record at all, it's just .. rather absurd. Not to be rude or anything, but I cannot see how Einstein ever said that E=ma^2. There could be an issue with translation, but c is a constant of velocity, not of acceleration.

Hello everyone, let me tell you a simple thing, there is some theoretical evidence proving my theory, I will make a many page report and post a comment to the link to that report, after you read the report tell me what you think, even negative critization I will accept. OKAY